The Laborers Are Few – Both Then and Now

Franz Pieper wrote this in the June, 1921 edition of “Lehre und Wehre”. There was a church worker shortage that year. A little over 40 congregations asked for a seminary candidate this year and did not receive one.

At this year’s gathering of District Presidents in St. Louis on May 25-26, it turned out that there were 179 calls and 103 candidates (80 from St. Louis, 22 from Springfield and 1 from Wauwatosa). In addition, our theological seminary in Porto Alegre, Brazil will graduate 10 candidates, all of whom will be employed in Brazil and Argentina. 108 congregational school teachers were sought, while only 38 candidates were reported as currently available from our teacher training colleges. A prominent part of the program that will be presented to district conventions this year is the reminder to send students in significantly increased numbers to our educational institutions. We are convinced that this reminder, done in the right way, will be faithfully heeded and will therefore also be accompanied by bountiful fruit. We must now, of course, be careful to cover the shortfall in candidates for the preaching office as best we can for the time being with vicars from St. Louis and Springfield. Special arrangements have been made to recruit female teachers to help out in congregational schools. We also report that the well-known shortage of workers for foreign service has caused a large number of candidates to apply for foreign service if they were deemed fit. Six candidates will go to India, four to China, three to Brazil and Argentina, two to Europe (Alsace and London). — As far as recruiting teachers for Church and school is concerned, we repeat our Ceterum censeo: First of all, all Christians have to see to it that the Church does not lack the necessary servants of the Word. It is therefore the duty of all Christians to keep on the lookout for such young men who could be recruited and trained for the service of the Church. This is one of the glorious rights and duties of all who are members of the spiritual body of Christ. But among those who have a public office in the Church, it is primarily the duty of the pastor to work unceasingly with instruction and admonition so that preachers and teachers also come from the congregations entrusted to them. Synod officials may help us in this. But as pastors we cannot and should not shy away from a duty that is part of our office in the congregation.

Franz Pieper on Contending for the Faith with Humility

We American Lutherans of the ‘strictly confessional wing’ do not have the slightest reason to exalt ourselves above others. We owe everything to God’s grace. He has placed us, for instance, in the most favorable religious and theological environment We – the second and third generation — have received our theological training under the most favorable conditions imaginable. We studied the theology of the Early Church, the Reformation, and of the dogmaticians, on the basis of the sources. At the same time our teachers constantly admonished us not to substitute any human authority — not even Luther or the Lutheran Confessions — for the authority of Scripture…. We are not so blind as not to see our weaknesses and shortcomings. We have been and are encountering difficulties in establishing and maintaining correct practice in some congregations. We have even experienced secessions which deeply humbled us. On the other hand, by God’s grace we are certain that the doctrine proclaimed among us is the Christian faith, the faith revealed in Scripture, the faith confessed in the Lutheran Symbols, and that this doctrine demands and must be granted exclusive recognition in the Church. (Forward to Volume One of “Christian Dogmatics)

Franz Pieper. Picture taken in 1923 at the Synod Convention in Ft. Wayne, IN.

Apply God’s Grace to Yourself

The difficulty in practice arises from the fact that, feeling that we are completely unworthy, we fail to relate the divine message of grace to ourselves. We heard Luther report about himself that he only dared to apply the consolation of absolution to his person when he was “accidentally” reminded by his “Preceptor” that God not only allows us to consider Him gracious, but God expressly commands us to do so. We therefore hear from Luther’s mouth, based on his own experience, the following instruction and admonition that has already saved many from deep distress: “You say: Yes, I would gladly believe it if I were like St. Peter and St. Paul and others who are pious and holy; but I am too great a sinner, and who know whether I am predestinated? Answer: Look at these words! What do they say, and of whom do they speak? ‘For God so loved the world’; and ‘that whosoever believeth on him.’ Now, the world is not simply St. Peter and St. Paul, but the entire human race taken collectively, and here no one is excluded: God’s Son was given for all, are are asked to believe, and all who believe shall not be lost etc. Take hold of your nose, search in your bosom, whether you are not also a man (that is, a piece of the world) and belong to the number which the word “whosoever” embraces, as well as others? If you and I are not to take this comfort to ourselves, then these words must have been spoken falsely and in vain. And surely, this has not been preached to any other than to humanity. Therefore, beware lest you exclude yourself and give place to the thought: Who knows whether it has been given to me? For that would be accusing God of falsely speaking in his Word. But, on the contrary, make a cross for yourself with these words, and say: If I am not St. Peter or St. Paul, I am, nevertheless, a part of the world. Had he intended to give it to the worthy only, then he would have had it preached to the angels alone, for they are pure and without sin. He could then not have given it to St. Peter, to David, or to Paul, for they were sinners as well as I. No matter what I am, I know that God’s Word is true; and if I do not accept it, then I am committing, above all other sins, this sin also, that I blaspheme the Word of God and the truth, and charge God with lying.” (Second Church Postil for Pentecost Monday)

– Franz Pieper, How Does A Christian Become Certain of His Eternal Salvation?

The Gift of God’s Word

The LORD’s Supper is not an adiaphora, but a divine order that should apply in the Church until Judgment Day. This has already been explained in detail (p. 290). It belongs to the gracious will of God that Christians who are able to examine themselves and discern the body of the LORD use the Sacrament. It has already been shown (p. 293ff, 373ff) that Christians have a particular consolation against the distress of sin in the Supper because not only is there an individual promise of grace in the Sacrament, but this individual promise of grace is also confirmed and sealed in a unique way, namely by administration of the Body of Christ that is given for us, and by administration of the Blood of Christ that is shed for us.

Nevertheless, an absolute necessity of the Supper for salvation cannot be taught because the forgiveness of sins is not scattered among the various means of grace, but each of them proffers the entire forgiveness of sins through Christ’s satisfactio vicaria and works faith, strengthens faith. It is therefore the case that a person who has believed in the preached or read Word of the Gospel has the forgiveness of sins and salvation through it, even if circumstances prevent them from using the Sacrament.

Franz Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, Volume 3, pages 456-457 (German), pages 391-392 (English)

My translation from German

The Law Is Preached to the Christian Because The Christian Remains in the Flesh

Christians, however, also need the Law as a norm, i.e., as rule and guideline from which they learn how they should walk in a God-pleasing way. Certainly not, however, in so far as they are reborn or Christians. To this extent, they have the Law of God within themselves and need no external rule and guideline for their manner of life. In this place belongs the word: “The Law is not laid down for the just.”[1] But inasmuch as Christians still have the flesh in themselves, blindness and perversity prevails in them regarding the will of God. They want to do things that God does not require of them, and the things they should do they want to omit.

The history of the Church and of every Christian life provides enough examples. Just think of monasticism. Men came and come to the strange delusion of wishing to serve God by leaving their vocation and running to the cloister. Let us remember that in ourselves, i.e., in our flesh, we often have little desire for the works of our vocation, but we may be content with the things that are not commanded us.

Therefore, we cannot seriously stress enough that the Law must be incessantly taught in the Church as the norm of a God-pleasing life. To the same people to whom the apostle said: “Christ is the end of the law”[2] he holds up before them: “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”[3] Further: Paul certainly gives Christians the testimony that they gladly give. He testifies to the Christian communities that they “gave according to their means and beyond their means, of their own accord”[4], and again: “I know your readiness”[5] — and yet the same apostle holds up before the same people as rule and norm: “God loves a cheerful giver”, and reminds them: “The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”[6] From this we see that we merely follow the apostolic model when we hold up the Law to Christians as the norm that shows them what they are to do.

Let us see to it that in this point no antinomian practice creeps in among us. Someone might think that all external substance has no value before God. That is why I will continue with the preaching of the Gospel, but keep silent of the Law as the norm of the Christian way of life. I will wait for true works to come by themselves. That would make a false distinction between Law and Gospel. This would in practice neglect a part of the Word of God. It is true that a Christian, as a Christian, is not only willing to walk in God’s commandments, but as a Christian he also knows himself (namely because the Law is written in his heart according to the new man), what is the good will of God. But a Christian is a double person [German: Doppelmensch]. He still has the old man in himself who always indicates the wrong way regarding works. But because the old man does not live apart from the Christian or is removed from him, but dwells in the Christian, and forms a person with him, he thus continually obscures the right knowledge of what the will of God is to the Christian. For this reason, the Law of God must still be held up before Christians as the norm of a God-pleasing life.

Franz Pieper, “The Practical Importance of the Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel”

Note: Italicized print is Pieper’s emphasis. Bold print is my emphasis.

[1] 1 Timothy 1:9.
[2] Romans 10:4.
[3] Romans 13:13-14.
[4] 2 Corinthians 8:3.
[5] 2 Corinthians 9:2.
[6] 2 Corinthians 9:6-7.

What Does It Mean to Preach Christ?

What does it mean to “preach Christ”? Some believe that Christ is preached when presented as a model in a holy manner of life and in good works; the sum of Christian doctrine is proclaimed when people are told, “Walk in the way that Christ has walked, then you come to heaven.” But to preach Christ is to say something entirely different. To preach Christ is to teach and to inculcate that salvation in Him alone and in such a way that human works are not considered. Paul preaches Christ in this way. He says: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”[1] And he calls out a warning to the Galatians: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”[2] Thus one only preaches Christ who teaches that we are justified and saved by grace for Christ’s sake through faith, and that salvation is not placed in a thousandth part on the works of man, nor on the works through which we follow Christ. As soon as someone teaches that one attains salvation through his own works, Christ is no longer preached but denied and blasphemed. Luther comes to this point when he defends his translation of Romans 3:28 against the upset Papists. He says: “Are we to deny Paul’s word on account of such ‘offense,’ or stop speaking out freely about faith? Land, St. Paul and I want to give such offense; we preach so strongly against works and insist on faith alone, for no other reason than that the people may be offended, stumble, and fall, in order that they may learn to know that they are not saved by their good works but only by Christ’s death and resurrection… What a fine, constructive, and inoffensive doctrine that would be, if people were taught that they could be saved by works, as well as faith! That would be as much as to say that it is not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sins, but that our works too have something to do with it. That would be a fine honoring of Christ’s death, to say that it is helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can do too—so that we are his equal in strength and goodness! This is the very devil; he can never quit abusing the blood of Christ.” (“On Translating: An Open Letter”, Luther’s Works 35:196-197)

Franz Pieper, “The Practical Importance of the Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel”, 1895 Kansas District Convention Address

[1] Romans 3:28.
[2] Galatians 5:4.

Who Is A Christian?

Who is a Christian? Rationalists describe a Christian like this: A Christian is a man who strives to be virtuous, to live according to his reason, or to live honestly according to the rules of “the great virtuous teacher”. A papist, upon questioning, would define a Christian as follows: A Christian is a man who submits himself to the Pope’s rule and who conforms himself to ecclesiastical arrangement. And there might well be among Lutherans here and there those who describe a Christian this way: A Christian is a man who goes to Church, and from time to time to the sacrament, pays his contributions, and is concerned with an honest manner of life before the world. — These are, however, descriptions which are partly quite false, partly do not give a clearly visible essence of a Christian. We say on the basis of Scripture: A Christian is a man who is convinced through the working of the Holy Spirit of two things: 1. of the fact that he is a sinner worthy of condemnation before God, and 2. of the fact that God forgives all his sins for Christ’s sake; i.e., a Christian is a man who knows to distinguish Law and Gospel. He lets the Law come into play; he lets his sin be revealed by the Law. He does not say: There is no serious intent with the demands and threats of the Law. No, he leaves the demands of the Law as they are. He admits not only with words, but also in his heart: I am a sinner worthy of condemnation. Through the law comes to him knowledge of his sin and worthiness of condemnation. But he lets the Law remain in this area. The question of how he is saved can only be answered by the Gospel. He believes that God absolves him in the Gospel of the sins He has revealed to him by the Law. He recognizes the Law as the Word of God; but he also knows that God has yet another word, the Gospel, and that all poor sinners should hear this other Word and from it gain the confidence that their sins are forgiven them. Thus a Christian is a man who lets both Law and Gospel take effect in themselves, but also knows how to separate both of them. Where this does not happen, then there is also no Christianity.

Franz Pieper, “The Practical Importance of the Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel”, 1895 Kansas District Convention Address

Theology as Habitus Practicus Theosdotos

Recent theology distinguishes between theology and the Church’s proclamation of salvation. The latter is supposed to present the Christian doctrines in so far as they are to be received by the Christian congregation through faith; theology on the other hand is said to have the function of “scientifically mediating” the congregation’s faith to the thinking intellect. For this reason also recent theology abandons its “direct relation to salvation”. The old Lutheran definition which consistently held to this relation is said to rest upon a confusion of “theology” with “the Church’s proclamation of salvation.”

Over against this Walther held with the old Lutheran theologians that theology is a habitus practicus theosdotos. In Lehre und Wehre Vol.14, p.4ff., he published a lengthy article entitled: “What is Theology? A contribution to the Prolegomena of Dogmatics”, in which he begins with the following thesis: “Theology is the practical habitude, wrought by the Holy Ghost and drawn from the Word of God by means of prayer, study, and trial, vitally to know and to impart the truth revealed in the written Word of God unto salvation, to establish it therefrom, to expound, apply and defend it, in order to lead sinful man through faith in Christ unto eternal salvation.”

Of this definition, Walther then proves that it is both Scriptural and also that given by most Lutheran teachers.

On the objective and subjective concepts of theology, or of theology conceived as teaching and as habitus of the theologian, Walther prefaces the following:

“Christian theology can be regarded in several ways, either subjectively, as something inhering in the soul of a man or objectively, as teaching which is presented orally or in writing. In the first case it is regarded absolutely, as it is in itself, apart from what may be done with it; in the other case it is regarded relatively, as it is in a certain respect, in accordance with a certain accidental characteristic with respect to a use which may be made of it. In the first case Christian theology is taken in its primary and proper, in the second case in its secondary and improper significance. Since theology must first be in the soul of a man before it can be taught by him or presented either orally or in writing, and since everything connected with theology must be judged in accordance with what it is in itself and in its essence, therefore in the thesis, according to the example of most dogmaticians in our church, the definition of theology regarded subjectively or concretely, i.e. as it inheres in a concretum or in a person, is given precedence.” (Lehre und Wehre, 14, 8 f.)

Theology, subjectively regarded, is to Walther “not the sum total of certain intellectual acquisitions”, but a habitude, a sufficiency or skill to perform certain functions. “The Holy Scripture”, says he (l.c., p.10), “although the word theology does not occur in it, itself specifies this as the category to which theology belongs. For since theology, subjectively considered, is what should be in those who are to administer the office of teachers in the church, we may therefore seek and recognize in the Biblical description of a teacher also a description of a true theologian.”

Walther refers to Hebr.5:12-14; II Cor. 3:5; II Tim 3:17. With regard to II Cor.3:5 he remarks: “In this passage the Apostle, after he has exclaimed in 2:16 with regard to his teaching office: ‘Who is sufficient for these things?’ writes as follows: ‘Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God.’ So that which in Heb. 5:14 is called a skill, (habitus, A.V.: ‘use’) is here called sufficiency. Now sufficiency implies not only a certain competence and skill by the observance of certain rules to produce a certain effect, but also at the same time a disposition of the soul, thus a habitude.”

Walther lays special emphasis on the fact that theology is altogether practical, that it is not concerned with satisfying the thirst for knowledge but with leading sinners to salvation. Theology is for him not a “theoretical habitude”, ” which has knowledge itself for its goal and therewith rests content (l.c., p. 73) but a “practical habitude.”

“It is the latter,” he writes (l.c., p. 72) “for the reason that its purpose is a practical one. St. Paul indicates wherein the purpose of theology consists when he writes, Titus 1:1,2: ‘Paul, a servant of God., and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness in hope of eternal life.’ Herewith the apostle obviously indicates the purpose of his offices namely that he has received it in view of the faith of the elect and the acknowledging of the truth unto Godliness and all of this in hope of eternal life. But the purpose of the office is also the purpose of theology. This purpose therefore is the true faith, the knowledge of the truth unto godliness and finally eternal life. See Rom.1:3 in connection with I Tim. 4: 3-6.”

Franz Pieper, “C.F. W. Walther as Theologian”.

Luther on True Perfection

I’m a simul justus et peccator guy to the end. I know I’ll never be perfect. I cling to Christ and His righteousness. I am weak on sanctification. I do not, however, deny that I quit striving after perfection in the way Saint Paul describes in Philippians chapter three: “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Franz Pieper says it best in Volume Three of “Christian Dogmatics”: “But the truth of the imperfection of sanctification in this life is not an excuse for laziness in sanctification and good works. Instead, God’s will and the corresponding Christian attitude to it seeks to ascertain that the Christian strives after not merely a partial, but a complete sanctification and not just some, but all good works.” (page 33 English Translation, page 38 German original. I’ve translated the German original here.)

With this teaching and these examples Christ now concludes [Matthew chapter five]: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Here our sophists have spun out many dreams about perfection and have applied them all to their orders and classes—as if only priests and monks were in a state of perfection, the one higher than the other, the bishops higher than all the others, and the pope the highest of all. By this means the word “perfection” becomes completely inapplicable to the ordinary Christian way of life, as if such people could not be called perfect or be perfect. But you hear Christ talking here not to bishops, monks, and nuns, but in general to all Christians who are His pupils, who want to be called the sons of God, and who do not want to be like the publicans and criminals as are the Pharisees and our clergy.

How does it come about that they are perfect? The answer—in brief, because elsewhere I have discussed it in more detail —is this: We cannot be or become perfect in the sense that we do not have any sin, the way they dream about perfection. Here and everywhere in Scripture “to be perfect” means, in the first place, that doctrine be completely correct and perfect, and then, that life move and be regulated according to it. Here, for example, the doctrine is that we should love not only those who do us good, but our enemies, too. Now, whoever teaches this and lives according to this teaching, teaches and lives perfectly.

But the teaching and the life of the Jews were both imperfect and wrong, because they taught that they should love only their friends, and they lived accordingly. Such a love is chopped up and divided, it is only half a love. What He wants is an entire, whole, and undivided love, where one loves and helps his enemy as well as his friend. So I am called a truly perfect man, one who has and holds the doctrine in its entirety. Now, if my life does not measure up to this in every detail—as indeed it cannot, since flesh and blood incessantly hold it back—that does not detract from the perfection. Only we must keep striving for it, and moving and progressing [My note: Luther uses here fortfahre – “continue”. “Progress” would be fortschritte machen] toward it every day. This happens when the spirit is master over the flesh, holding it in cheek, subduing and restraining it, in order not to give it room to act contrary to this teaching. It happens when I let love move along on the true middle course, treating everyone alike and excluding no one. Then I have true Christian perfection, which is not restricted to special offices or stations, but is common to all Christians, and should be. It forms and fashions itself according to the example of the heavenly Father. He does not split or chop up His love and kindness, but by means of the sun and the rain He lets all men on earth enjoy them alike, none excluded, be he pious or wicked.

Luther’s Works Volume 21, pages 128-129

Martin Luther via Franz Pieper on A Righteous Man Sins in All His Good Works

A righteous man sins in all his good works.

This article annoys the great saints of work-righteousness, who place their trust not in God’s mercy, but in their own righteousness, that is, on sand. What happened to the house built on sand in Matt. 7[:26] will also happen to them. But a godly Christian ought to learn and know that all his good works are inadequate and insufficient in the sight of God. In the company of all the dear saints he ought to despair of his own works and rely solely on the mercy of God, putting all confidence and trust in him. Therefore we want to establish this article very firmly and see what the dear saints have to say about it.

Isaiah 64[:6] says, “We are all of us unclean, and all our righteousness is as a filthy stinking rag.” You notice that the prophet makes no exceptions. He says, “We are all of us unclean,” yet he himself was a holy prophet. Again, if our righteousness is unclean and stinking before God, what will our unrighteousness be? Moreover, he says “all righteousness,” making no exception. Now, if there is such a thing as a good work without sin, this prophet lies, which God forbid! Is not this passage from Isaiah sufficiently clear? Why then do they condemn my article, which says nothing but what Isaiah says? But we are glad to be condemned along with this holy prophet.

Again, Solomon says in Eccles. 7[:20], “There is no man on earth so righteous that he does good and sins not.” I trust this passage is clear enough, and it corresponds with my article almost word for word. And now, since Solomon is here condemned, look, his father David must also be condemned. He says in Ps. 143[:2], “Lord, enter not into judgment with me, thy servant, for no man living is righteous before thee.” Now, who is God’s servant but the man who does good works? How, then, does it happen that this very man cannot face God’s judgment? Surely God’s judgment is not unjust. If a work were actually altogether good and without sin, it would not flee God’s just judgment. The defect, then, must of necessity be in the work, which is not pure. It is for this reason that no man living is justified in God’s sight and all men need his mercy, even in their good works. Here you papists have an opportunity to show your learning—not merely by inventing bulls, but by answering such passages of Scripture.

Back in the first two articles I have shown that all the saints struggle against their sinful flesh, and continue to be sinners as long as they live in the flesh which is at war with the spirit. At one and the same time, they serve God according to the spirit, and sin according to the flesh. If, then, a godly man is at the same time justified by reason of the spirit, and sinful by reason of the flesh, his work must certainly be like the person, the fruit like the tree. In so far as the spirit participates in the work, it is good; in so far as the flesh participates in it, it is evil….

But if they say here, as they always do, “Yes, but this impurity is not sin but rather an imperfection, or weakness, or defect,” my reply is that it is indeed a defect and a weakness, but if that is not sin I am prepared to say that murder and adultery are not sins either but only defects and weaknesses. Who has given you papists the power to twist God’s Word and to call the impurity of a good work weakness and not sin? Where is there a single letter of Scripture supporting your side? Must we believe your nightmares, unsubstantiated by Scripture, when you refuse to believe our clear texts?…

If, then, David says that even God’s servants cannot face his judgment and no man living is justified in his sight, then this weakness must certainly be sin, and he who will not allow that any living man is justified in his sight includes most certainly also those who walk in good works. Unless, of course, they are neither “men” nor “living.”

Augustine says in his Confessions IX, “Woe unto every human life, even the most praiseworthy, were it to be judged without mercy.” Look how this great heretic, St. Augustine, speaks brazenly and sacrilegiously against this holy bull. Not only does he attribute sin to a good life, but he condemns even the very best life, which doubtlessly abounds in good works, as though it were nothing but mortal sin, if judged without mercy. O, St. Augustine, are you not afraid of the most holy father pope?

St. Gregory, too, speaks of that holy man Job and says, quoting Job 9[:8], “Job, that holy man, saw that all our good works are nothing but sin, if God should judge them. Therefore he said, ‘If one wished to contend with God, one could not answer him once in a thousand times.’ ” Gregory, how can you say this? How dare you say that all our good works are nothing but sin? Now you are under the pope’s ban, and a heretic far worse than Luther. For he only says that there is sin in all good works; you make them out to be nothing but sin.

If these passages do not help to substantiate my article, then may God help it! I would much rather be condemned with Isaiah, David, Solomon, Paul, Augustine, and Gregory, than praised with the pope and all the bishops and papists, even though all the world were made up of pope, bishops, and papists. Blessed is he who should die for this cause!

LW 32:83-86 (from “Defense and Explanation of All The Articles”, 1521). Quoted in Franz Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics”, 3:35-37